Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

JLC- Holmgren on Campbell: 'Have Some Patience


gobigred

Recommended Posts

It was supposed to read 4-5. I edited it to reflect my typo. That being said, since I don't have my data anymore, I'll concede your point and see if I can find some time to rewatch games. I'll be sure to keep track of this for a few games this year, though hopefully Dock and his large houseguest can provide a little more support than the tissue paper fencing we had up the last 10 games of 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know much about Atlanta. The Ravens and Phins owe their good seasons mostly to turnovers. The Phins led the league with +17. The Ravens' defense lead the league with 34 takeaways. Neither team is likely to repeat their performance this season since those stats rarely are consistent from year to year.

Each turnover is worth four points on average. Since the Ravens had 16 more takeaways than our defense, that's four points a game. With four points more per game on average, it's likely the Skins would have been 11-5 also.

It's my belief that a good offense leads to more takeaways on defense. Your defense is able to rest...and if you get a lead the other team is forced to take more chances.

Either way...the Falcons, Dolphins, and Ravens all looked extremely more efficient and comfortable in their first year offenses than the Skins did. And this shows that it CAN be done. After being told that Saunder's 600 page playbook takes 3 years to learn, the team abandoned it and went in another direction...telling us this new offense takes the same amount of time to master.

Don't be surprised to see a completely different scheme in a year. I think nothing scares this organization more than running out of excuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sad you have to resort to that proscout. but oh well.

It's the only thing you can do when you just troll and use illogical arguments that leave out every side but your own. I should not use the word argument, that is not what you do. You simply quarrel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

matt ryan played behind the exact same line that led the falcons to 3-13 with chris redman.

no one would argue that the dolphins didnt upgrade their line, they definitely did. but how on earth didnt pennington learn that offense so quickly? youd think he needs 3 years like most good QBS!

Same offensive line? Are you sure about that? Not even the same team...

Ojinnaka and Gandy (LT) split time in 2007 and neither one started a game in 2008. In fact, in 2008, Weiner played in 11 games and split time w/ Baker.

Blaylock (LG) was a rook in 2007 and its very possible he got better. He was and early 2nd round pick after all. How about that? Youth on the line!

McClure © was a usual staple. I'll give you that.

Forney (RG) started 14 games in 2007 and ZERO in 2008. He was not even in the NFL in 2008. Dahl took that spot and I would say he earned the right to keep it.

Clabo and Weiner (RT) split time in 2007(11/7 respectivley). In 2008 Clabo was able to stay healthy and started all 16 games.

Add to that you had Harrington starting most of the year, with the stunning running attack of Dunn and Norwood who combined for 1333 and a whopping 5 TD's.

So yeah... your right. The Falcon were a twin of themselves from 2007. All they did was add Ryan. Championship!

Oh yeah... about Pennington. first off, the offensive styles were not all that different. It was one of the reasons Peenington went to Miami. Secondly... but more importantly. He had time in the pocket to make reads and let plays develop. He is a prime example of how itsmore important to have good protection than a super-duper fast release. Its real easy.

When Pennington has protection = wins and trophies

When Pennington does not have protection, it leads to losses and no trophies.

At no point does that same QB play slower, or faster, or forget all that he has learned from the past. Its all about protection. See former MVP and Superbowl champion Kurt Warner as another example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defense is easier to coach and learn because, given half a chance, many offenses defeat themselves with poor execution.

The toughest coaching job is putting together an effective passing game. That's why coaches like Norv Turner, who can do it, are sought after and offered head coaching jobs.

thats a cop out if you ask me. you can go both ways, you can say a pass defense could be successful from a defense executing poorly.

and lets look at norv turner for a sec. has he ever put together a good offense without a franchise QB?

he was extremely successful at dallas, not surpring he had a hall of fame QB to work with. he came to DC, and from 94 to 2000 he had a top 10 offense twice. not so successful i think we'd all agree. he went on to be the OC at SD, and had a decent year, but didnt do anything impressive. spent the next 2 seasons at miami, first year he was mediocre, last year their offense was pretty awful. he then moved to the raiders where he failed miserably. after that he went on to SF where the offense was a bottom feeder. then he took over the SD job, and shockingly their offense is top flight, not surprisingly hes got phillip rivers to work with.

so in short, his offense has been very potent when troy aikman and phillip rivers are running things. when heath shuler, alex smith, jay fielder, doug flutie, and gus ferrotte are in charge, his offense is pretty bad. shouldnt be a surprise that awesome QB play = awesome offense regardless of norv.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the only thing you can do when you just troll and use illogical arguments that leave out every side but your own. I should not use the word argument, that is not what you do. You simply quarrel.

sorry you cant come up with an explanation for my question either. but then again its much easier to lean on weak excuses and dodge questions with bad attempts at humor than to answer what i asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my belief that a good offense leads to more takeaways on defense. Your defense is able to rest...and if you get a lead the other team is forced to take more chances.

Since the Redskins defense was on the field three minutes less per game than the offense in 2008, and only allowed 18 takeaways, our D had no excuse. It needs to be -- and will be -- more aggressive in 2009.

Either way...the Falcons, Dolphins, and Ravens all looked extremely more efficient and comfortable in their first year offenses than the Skins did. And this shows that it CAN be done. After being told that Saunder's 600 page playbook takes 3 years to learn, the team abandoned it and went in another direction...telling us this new offense takes the same amount of time to master.

The move to abandon the Coryell is an NFL trend which continues with the Rams moving to the WCO this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

matt ryan played behind the exact same line that led the falcons to 3-13 with chris redman.

no one would argue that the dolphins didnt upgrade their line, they definitely did. but how on earth didnt pennington learn that offense so quickly? youd think he needs 3 years like most good QBS!

How'd Brad Johnson do with Dallas' o-line (which, I've now learned is older, on average, than the skins')?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same offensive line? Are you sure about that? Not even the same team...

Ojinnaka and Gandy (LT) split time in 2007 and neither one started a game in 2008. In fact, in 2008, Weiner played in 11 games and split time w/ Baker.

Blaylock (LG) was a rook in 2007 and its very possible he got better. He was and early 2nd round pick after all. How about that? Youth on the line!

McClure © was a usual staple. I'll give you that.

Forney (RG) started 14 games in 2007 and ZERO in 2008. He was not even in the NFL in 2008. Dahl took that spot and I would say he earned the right to keep it.

Clabo and Weiner (RT) split time in 2007(11/7 respectivley). In 2008 Clabo was able to stay healthy and started all 16 games.

Add to that you had Harrington starting most of the year, with the stunning running attack of Dunn and Norwood who combined for 1333 and a whopping 5 TD's.

So yeah... your right. The Falcon were a twin of themselves from 2007. All they did was add Ryan. Championship!

mcclure, clabo, blaylock all started in 07 and 08. thats 3/5 of the line. all they did is move todd weiner, who started half the season at RT in 07 to LT in 08 when baker went down after 6 weeks. the only real difference was one guard. they didnt do any real major overhauls of infuse the line with tons of youth, they just had a better QB playing with them.

so the falcons took almost the same oline, added a backup running back, a rookie QB, a new offensive system, and ended up with the 6th overall offense in the NFL. this was after one season. no learning curve. no "getting used to the system". no excuses, just results. 6th ranked offense in the first year of the system with everything completely different.

explain that to me. then explain why we cant do that.

Oh yeah... about Pennington. first off, the offensive styles were not all that different. It was one of the reasons Peenington went to Miami. Secondly... but more importantly. He had time in the pocket to make reads and let plays develop. He is a prime example of how itsmore important to have good protection than a super-duper fast release. Its real easy.

When Pennington has protection = wins and trophies

When Pennington does not have protection, it leads to losses and no trophies.

At no point does that same QB play slower, or faster, or forget all that he has learned from the past. Its all about protection. See former MVP and Superbowl champion Kurt Warner as another example.

arizonas oline sucks, so dont go there with warner. unless youre referring to the rams oline back in the day, i dont remember if it was bad/good.

pennington proved he could play with the jets too, he was just always injured and run out of town. he definitely had a good oline and that helped. but i dont wanna discuss pennington because if its true that he already knew the offense then that would explain his success (although im not sure thats true, if you can prove that id like to see where youve seen that)

lets stick with matt ryan and the falcons for now. explain how they accomplished what they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats a cop out if you ask me. you can go both ways, you can say a pass defense could be successful from a defense executing poorly.

If the pass is thrown poorly, it doesn't matter whether the defense is good or not.

and lets look at norv turner for a sec. has he ever put together a good offense without a franchise QB?

Norv has done well with the available talent on offense at every stop except Oakland. As an OC, he installed San Diego's offense in LT's rookie year. Frank gore misses him in SF. He made Aikman a HOF QB and he's making Rivers better than he was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lets stick with matt ryan and the falcons for now. explain how they accomplished what they did.

While I agree that Ryan looks like he will become a very good QB in the NFL I would offer the following thought: Last year they played a soft schedule.

The Falcons only played 6 teams last year who finished above .500 and had only 4 games against playoff teams. This year their schedule looks much harder on paper - they have the 3rd hardest schedule based on their opponents 2008 won loss record.

It will be interesting to see how they fare this year in comparison to last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the pass is thrown poorly, it doesn't matter whether the defense is good or not.

Norv has done well with the available talent on offense at every stop except Oakland. As an OC, he installed San Diego's offense in LT's rookie year. Frank gore misses him in SF. He made Aikman a HOF QB and he's making Rivers better than he was.

i still dont think that proves that a defense is somehow harder to learn/grasp than an offense. there is no rule that says "offenses take 3 years, but defenses only take 1".

and norv hasnt done anything impressive, except when hes had a great QB. thats my point, norvs offenses only look great when theres a great QB to make it look that way. anytime norv has taken over an offense without a legit QB, the offense doesnt do very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i still dont think that proves that a defense is somehow harder to learn/grasp than an offense. there is no rule that says "offenses take 3 years, but defenses only take 1".

It's this simple. The offense can fail to complete a pass even if the defense isn't in the vicinity. But, a defender can blow a coverage assignment and not be burned if the QB doesn't spot it. Spotting and hitting an open receiver requires talent on both ends of the completion that defenders don't need.

That's why conservative coaches for the last hundred years didn't want to put the ball in the air.

and norv hasnt done anything impressive, except when hes had a great QB. thats my point, norvs offenses only look great when theres a great QB to make it look that way. anytime norv has taken over an offense without a legit QB, the offense doesnt do very well.

This is simply your unsupported opinion. I disagree.

There is something we might agree on, though. I happen to think that Al's offense and Zorn's offense are too complex. It should not take three years for a QB to become proficient. It should not take a receiver a year to become productive. I like Jim Zorn's plan overall, but I think he needs to simplify somewhat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree that Ryan looks like he will become a very good QB in the NFL I would offer the following thought: Last year they played a soft schedule.

The Falcons only played 6 teams last year who finished above .500 and had only 4 games against playoff teams. This year their schedule looks much harder on paper - they have the 3rd hardest schedule based on their opponents 2008 won loss record.

It will be interesting to see how they fare this year in comparison to last year.

are you trying to say that the falcons played an easy schedule and thats why they had they went 11-5? that a pretty weak reason to explain how they went from 3-13 to 11-5. they played those 6 teams above 500, plus the saints twice who are always a tough team, the broncos who went 8-8, and the chargers who although went 8-8 were no joke either. so thats 10 teams that all went 8-8 or better.

the redskins played 9 teams over 500, 10 teams that went 8-8 or better. looking at both of their schedules last season, the falcons played teams that went a combined 118-137-1 and the redskins played teams that went a combined 121-133-2. pretty close if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yanno, this all begs the larger question of "Why?" when you look at the Falcons or Phins....... So often it seems like there are two separate opposing mindsets when it comes to coaching. There is the old school "my way or the highway" one that demands that players perform in a set pattern, extremely scheme oriented, extremely anal retentive detail oriented. You used to see success from this in the old days when a team stayed relatively the same year after year and allowed personnel to "get it". The flip side of the coin is generally the younger coaching style that will try whatever works since they have less resume, more pressure to perform. They seem a lot more willing to try and tailor a plan based on what their team does well, making the best out of what they have on hand rather than pounding square pegs into round holes.

Gibbs God luvvim was a "my way" kinda guy, and I believe some of the shortcomings we saw were due to that, not targeting players that did what you needed but rather guys that were amenable to your coaching. Look at Sparano, he was runnin the damn wildcat for crissakes, not only runnin it but making it work! It's hard to believe that wasn't pulled straight out of someone's ass in camp because they did it in college and he said "What the hell, we'll give it a shot"

I don't think people are willing to cut Zorn enough slack on the fact that he was utterly a rookie coach, more a rook than others, and was put in a situation where he had to learn a lot of the basic elements of the job as he went along. I am honestly expecting to see some fundamental changes in the way he goes about coaching the team this year, how willing he is to craft a plan based more on his assets than his wishes, since he will have a far better grasp of what those are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's this simple. The offense can fail to complete a pass even if the defense isn't in the vicinity. But, a defender can blow a coverage assignment and not be burned if the QB doesn't spot it. Spotting and hitting an open receiver requires talent on both ends of the completion that defenders don't need.

That's why conservative coaches for the last hundred years didn't want to put the ball in the air.

This is simply your unsupported opinion. I disagree.

There is something we might agree on, though. I happen to think that Al's offense and Zorn's offense are too complex. It should not take three years for a QB to become proficient. It should not take a receiver a year to become productive. I like Jim Zorn's plan overall, but I think he needs to simplify somewhat.

i see what youre saying about a passing offense and you make a good point. however, that doesnt translate to an offense taking years to learn. while it may be harder to do if what you say holds true, it shouldnt be light years beyond learning a defensive system.

and as to norv, we can just disagree. i see nothing in his history that is impressive without a very very good QB.

and i agree that an offense shouldnt take three years. whether its too complex or campbell just cant pick up on it, who knows. but nothing should take that long to learn. and i like zorns plan as well, and if simplifying the offense will make us perform better, im all for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and i agree that an offense shouldnt take three years. whether its too complex or campbell just cant pick up on it, who knows. but nothing should take that long to learn. and i like zorns plan as well, and if simplifying the offense will make us perform better, im all for it.

In practices last year, we heard that Jason was sharp, the ball wasn't hitting the ground. We heard the same thing recently during the minicamp. This tells me that he has his mechanics together when not under pressure. That's a big step forward in my book. He is no longer limited by his sloppy mechanics.

His unknown limits are mental. How quickly will he read and react to defenses? How calm will he be when rushed?

I have no doubt he will be better this year than last, but all QBs wilt under pressure, the question is how much. When last seen on the national stage, Tom Brady looked very average against the pressure the Giants gave him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In practices last year, we heard that Jason was sharp, the ball wasn't hitting the ground. We heard the same thing recently during the minicamp. This tells me that he has his mechanics together when not under pressure. That's a big step forward in my book. He is no longer limited by his sloppy mechanics.

His unknown limits are mental. How quickly will he read and react to defenses? How calm will he be when rushed?

I have no doubt he will be better this year than last, but all QBs wilt under pressure, the question is how much. When last seen on the national stage, Tom Brady looked very average against the pressure the Giants gave him.

its all mental with him. somebody posted something earlier that lombardi went as far to say it was 75% mental toughness that wins games. he might be stretching it with that, but as a GI joe would say, "its half the battle".

i know people dont like hearing this, but its the daniel cabrera thing. dude has all the tools (or did in baltimore) to be an ace. huge frame, great speed, good movement, durability, etc. but he just cant put it together on gameday. campbell has more upside than dcab, but its the same concept. all the tools, but it doesnt pan out (for whatever reason you wanna claim). i think its mental with campbell, some feel otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its all mental with him. somebody posted something earlier that lombardi went as far to say it was 75% mental toughness that wins games. he might be stretching it with that, but as a GI joe would say, "its half the battle".

75% of Lombardi's quotes would disagree with other Lombardi quotes. the man tended to overstate his points.:D

i know people dont like hearing this, but its the daniel cabrera thing. dude has all the tools (or did in baltimore) to be an ace. huge frame, great speed, good movement, durability, etc. but he just cant put it together on gameday. campbell has more upside than dcab, but its the same concept. all the tools, but it doesnt pan out (for whatever reason you wanna claim). i think its mental with campbell, some feel otherwise.

I think long, lanky athletes have to be super athletic (Jim Palmer) to keep their mechanics together for long stretches, especially under pressure which adds tension and restricts coordination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you trying to say that the falcons played an easy schedule and thats why they had they went 11-5? that a pretty weak reason to explain how they went from 3-13 to 11-5. they played those 6 teams above 500, plus the saints twice who are always a tough team, the broncos who went 8-8, and the chargers who although went 8-8 were no joke either. so thats 10 teams that all went 8-8 or better.

the redskins played 9 teams over 500, 10 teams that went 8-8 or better. looking at both of their schedules last season, the falcons played teams that went a combined 118-137-1 and the redskins played teams that went a combined 121-133-2. pretty close if you ask me.

I'm saying that the easy schedule (they did have one of the easiest schedules in the NFL last year) was a factor in the turn around. Ryans play, the signing of Turner from the Bolts and a much better defense were also big factors no question.

I'm actually not trying to argue that this has any bearing on the Redskins just that its a bit early to close the book on the Falcons as having turned it all around and Ryan being a really good NFL QB. I recall Rick Mirer looked pretty good his first year in the NFL ......

Again I think it will be interesting to see how they - and Ryan - cope with what projects to be a much tougher schedule this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying that the easy schedule (they did have one of the easiest schedules in the NFL last year) was a factor in the turn around. Ryans play, the signing of Turner from the Bolts and a much better defense were also big factors no question.

I'm actually not trying to argue that this has any bearing on the Redskins just that its a bit early to close the book on the Falcons as having turned it all around and Ryan being a really good NFL QB. I recall Rick Mirer looked pretty good his first year in the NFL ......

Again I think it will be interesting to see how they - and Ryan - cope with what projects to be a much tougher schedule this year.

well youd think that a 1700 rusher with 17 TDs, and a QB that threw 16 TDs as a rookie and passed for 3000+ yards would only get better with time. although you never know.

i do know that id like to see the redskins have an 11-5 season again before im 70 years old. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just realized that we have had only two winning seasons this decade with one season to go. It is our worst showing since the 1960's.

In the 1970's, we had eight winning seasons.

In the 1980's, we had seven winning seasons.

In the 1990's, we had six winning seasons.

In the 2000's, we are extremely patient.

I've lost mine, so I am going to start demanding excellence. Anybody with me on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...